"In the sphere of thought, absurdity and
perversity remain the masters of the world, and their dominion is suspended only
for brief periods." − Arthur Schopenhauer

8 Major Issues

Issue
1 - the major or ultimate issue.
Do I get what I want and need or don't I. Is the Universe (the cosmos or system of all of reality) set up
or structured for me to win by MY definition of winning, that is, is it
set up for me to get what I really−naturally, legitimately−want and need, or do I have to change
my deepest desires and needs to match what is offered?

Commentary - If it is
not set up for us to win by our definition, then we are stuck ultimately trying to
swallow its reality or get out of it
one way or another. Or, since we are
defined as humans by our potential, our needs and desires, a humane purpose
and culturally transcendent set of values, we are stuck changing
ourselves fundamentally to being something that we are not.

Issue
2. Does the physical universe have its
ground of being in intelligence and will, or does intelligence and will have
their ground of
being in the material universe?
Which is the greater or primary realm of reality? Spiritual
reality, which includes the non-material: intelligence, will, attitude, the humane qualities of love,
compassion, romance, kindness, mercy and grace, anger, frustration,
knowledge, etc.? Or physical reality
consisting of the material universe, matter and motion−that which we
can measure with physical equipment?

Commentary - Since every belief system must start with something,
for this issue there are only 3 options: 1) Physical material is
primary, existed
first and the spiritual realities arose through a series of "happy
accidents" as adjuncts and/or emergent properties of material structure, or
2) Physical material and the spiritual (intelligence) are somehow
inseparable and both existed first, or 3) Intelligence and will existed first and
designed and created (projected?) the physical material universe.

Issue
3. Given options 2 or 3 above, does the creative agency care enough about us (its/his creation) and our
unhappy condition to at least communicate with us in a special way
(theism in contrast to deism) that can be meaningful and effective for an
imminent resolution of the
human condition?

Commentary -
A creator that doesn't care about
imminently helping us out and doesn't offer us a way of resolving the
human condition is not worthy of the term "God". Theism posits
that the Creator care to give us a
"special" objective revelation other than or beyond what nature,
including human nature and self
revelation, implies. Atheism means "without theism", and deism posits a creator
that is not involved. Deists and agnostics are technically atheists.

Issue
4. Does ultimate worth and value lie in the individual, or does it
lie in something other, such as in organizations, institutions, sets of
codes, physical and ethical laws, etc.?
Should individuals primarily serve the cosmos, the organization or the
agencies, OR should these entities
primarily
serve individuals? Do organizations derive their value from serving
individuals or do individuals derive their value from serving
organizations?

Commentary -
If the ultimate value does not lie in
the individual, then there is no foundation for value in anything else.
How can an organization or any other structure−physical or spiritual−have any value outside of serving
to sustain and enhance the lives of individuals?

Issue
5. CAN the creator offer to us equality and peership, or is the
creator stuck in the box of being superior and relating to us as inferiors? DOES the
creator offer to us equality and peership, or is the creator too
egocentric, too afraid, or too alien to completely share with us those
aspects and qualities that would enable us to choose to be equal and
accept and receive equality?

Commentary -
Equality and peership mean that our
worth and value, our needs and desires, our potential and abilities, our
rights and privileges would be the equal to any life in the universe, including
the creator. It would mean equality through
supremacy, not through inferiority or superiority.

Issue
6. Is the nature of reality such that love is always a win/win
situation, or does love sometimes demand sacrifice?

Commentary - Love should not be giving, sacrificing, taking or
trading, but should be based around sharing, and should always be a
win-win.

Issue
7. Are morality and ethics the same thing? Are ethics and morality related to a "code" or set of laws, or is morality
determined by that which ultimately increases morale without violating
ethics?

Commentary -
Morality and ethics are NOT the same thing, but are related. Ethics
deals with what is loving, right or proper behavior, and morality relates to that
which will ultimately increase our morale. What if Man was made to live by inspiration
from purpose and values, instead of trying to behave according to a set
of rules or law?

Issue
8. Is evil a necessary part of reality, i.e, created by the
originator, or was evil introduced into experiential reality by some
other way? By Mankind or some other agency? A breakdown of unity? Doing something wrong, or a
FAILURE to
do something?

Commentary -
If "evil" is necessary to make or
contrast with "good", then "evil" is just as good
and valid as "good".
Evil must not have been designed or intended, but somehow introduced into an otherwise perfect
universe! What is the rather obvious answer to the "mystery of
iniquity"?